Sky Sports obsession with Tiger Woods.

Aiel

Appologies if this is in another thread but i didnt see it.Basically i think its gone beyond ridiculous the coverage he still gets.He hasnt won a tournment in how long and even though he's well down the field in a tournament they show every single shot of his.Meanwhile you only see a select few shots of the actual leaders,especially on the first days.I know Sky use the Golf Channell and other stations when showing coverage of actual play so its not their fault for that.What is their fault however is the amount of discussion time he gets in the studio during coverage.They wont talk about the leader or others up near the top much.They give more discussion time to Tiger then they do to European golfers in the field.If he was still world number 1 and more importantly leading that particular tournament then fine but the coverage he gets is way out of proportion.
Anyone agree/disagree?

Ken.

I agree completly, i actually root for tiger to go out at half way so i can see some other golfers saturday and sunday

Jaysoose

Its simple the man is big business, people want to see his every shot and the viewing figures are up when he is in the field, sky are simply meeting the demand.

saintastic

In fairness, with all of the ads in the US, Sky have to fill time and I think one of the easiest "go-to" topics is Tiger.

They did a great piece showing Bubba Watson's swing in slow motion the other night and focussed on Jhonathan Vegas' swing and how technically perfect it is and they were both the leaders so they do spread it as much as they can, imo.

premierstone

Supply and demand, and if, which im sure they are constantly striving to, they are attempting to attract new ''non-golf'' viewers then Tiger is the obvious and instantly recognisable person.

He was actually the highest ranked player in the world at last weeks event and the pictures were coming from american channels.

AGC

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

blackwaterfish

US TV coverage of golf is atroucious. tons of ads... loads of gimmicky graphical nonsense and fupp all golf shots by anyone except the leading two groups. The commentating standards both from the US & UK channels ( with the exception of BBC ) would make a man weep longingly for death.

the deadly combination of rob lee & mark roe... jesus wept!

and that other twad back in the studio.. scottish cliche merchant.

the sooner golf embraces the digital tv revolution ... where you can follow your chosen golfer while keeping tabs on the leading groups on a little wee screen in the corner... the better.... obviously.

just one camera man per group with a decent mike on the camera - how hard can it be??

ShriekingSheet

I see your point, but I don't mind it at all. Of course there's a money element, as mentioned, but from a purely golfing point of view, I think it's still worth showing him.

Golfing ability wise, we have never seen his like before. We could easily never see his like again in our lifetimes. In 50 years time, when there's fresh dominant forces, there's a fair chance they'll still be showing clips of Woods' achievments and saying "no one has done anything like that before or since", because they probably won't have such a stand-out player in the current crop.

It's likely the golf-mad teens, twenty-somethings and middle-aged folk of that time will be watching it going "Holy sh*t, imagine what it must have been like to watch him hole those putts and close out those wins in real time?". Us guys get to do that.

We're watching a legend. If he shoots 74 and they show every shot, so what? It's still interesting. How many of us Irish folk would still be interested in seeing nearly every shot by Harrington, McIlroy, McDowell, Clarke, McGrane etc... even if they weren't in contention? Of course we would. It's the same with Woods, only most of the golfing world is interested.

All you have to do is look at the ratings when he is and isn't playing. And I'd be confident in suggesting a similar ratings pattern would exist among Irish viewers if one of ours is in contention or not.

People don't just want to see the leaders.

Osgoodisgood

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Golfing ability wise, we have never seen his like before.

You can only argue that if you're 24 years old or younger.

It's likely the golf-mad teens, twenty-somethings and middle-aged folk of that time will be watching it going "Holy sh*t, imagine what it must have been like to watch him hole those putts and close out those wins in real time?". Us guys get to do that.

Possibly. But will they also know that that's about all we got to see?

We're watching a legend. If he shoots 74 and they show every shot, so what? It's still interesting.

It really isn't you know. Watching Woods play like a busted arse is not better than watching absolutely anybody else play well. It's dull and depressing to watch him play like a shadow of himself.

jonrambo

sky dont have any control over the feed they recieve from the pga tour coverage which comes from the golf channel which is why tiger`s evey shot is show....in fairness any time tiger plays in europe when sky are controlling the cameras he doesnt get half as much coverage....

DH2K9

It will be interesting to see how much coverage Tiger gets when he plays in Dubai. Sky have full control so that will give you a more realistic answer. He still is the world number 3.

LostPassword

blackwaterfish wrote: »

US TV coverage of golf is atroucious. tons of ads... loads of gimmicky graphical nonsense and fupp all golf shots by anyone except the leading two groups. The commentating standards both from the US & UK channels ( with the exception of BBC ) would make a man weep longingly for death.

The worst bits are where the commentators splice in ads for the tournament sponsors into their actual commentary - Farmers' Insurance, looking after rural communities, like a great big family, since 1932.... - and now a great shot of Phil from the Farmers Insurance blimp - providing us pictures to match their care of their communities - blaaaaaaeeeeucch.

The soft-focus shots of stars and stripes and the cut-aways to propagandatastic interviews with military officers, just back from protecting our democracy in Afghanistan are pretty evil too, as are the obligitary inserts of scenes of an executive from the corporate sponsor explaining how his corporation are doing so much great work for the homeless in the relevant community.

If the didn't have all this, they wouldn't have the money to pay $10 million prize funds and so actual golf shots have to be relegated to about 10 minutes of every hour.

Obviously, I still lap it up though.

Johnny_Fontane

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

We're watching a legend. If he shoots 74 and they show every shot, so what? It's still interesting. How many of us Irish folk would still be interested in seeing nearly every shot by Harrington, McIlroy, McDowell, Clarke, McGrane etc...

Totally agree. I could watch McIlroy all day too and hence why sky show alot of coverage of him aswell.

I find it fascinating to watch him play badly as well as brilliantly. Its the fact that you can see the demons in his head as he's going around, you can see and observe that he is making swing changes mid round. His recoveries are utterly ridiculous at times and it reminds me of watching Norman, Ballesteros and Mickelson at their very best.

I think to appreciate Woods though, you have to have seen him play in real life, to understand the kind of pressures that he is under when playing.

Uncle Mclovin

To be fair to Sky it's not their pictures that they are showing.


I recall sometime last year the American broadcaster continually showing Woods when he was well off the pace. The presenter on Sky (can't recall his name) was apologising for all the pictures of Woods when he wasn't in contention. But then again as said earlier the analysts they have on are just awful. Painful to listen to.